Why Kid Yourself America, Gun Control isn Not About the 2nd Ammendment

All I see are Americans not caring how many children get killed as long as they get to keep their assault rifles

You mean those at the top of The Eye will continue to stage murder after murder in country after country until they achieve their goal of world gun
control (of course only from the hands of the 'little people'.?

You know too, when the leaders of the (once) Free World, acting on behalf of the Global Aristocracy murder their own people as a pretext to go out and
murder millions more IMo it sets a bad example.

Perhaps all the gangsters in Chicago that murdered over 500 of their own city's citizens last year simply are following in the footsteps of those
gangsters (s)elected to lead.

I think the quote I read here by another poster was perfect, when he said "You throw down first".

Darlin', if you all ever do decide to take back that country and make it what it should be, I will be there in a red-hot second to lend my support in
whatever way is needed. Count on that. But I want to see some spine first. I want people to know why they want what they want and to be sure that
the direction they're taking things has their whole heart and soul in it. You best believe I'm brave. I want to know you are too.

Originally posted by michael1983l
Its about power. You all masquerade that it is about protecting your civil liberties and your constitution, but it is not is it? start being honest
with yourselves and others about the real reason you want to keep your gun. It is about feeling powerful isn't it? That is all it is, you think that
owning a gun makes you powerful, because you have the ability to take somebodys life should you choose to do so. This makes you feel all warm and
fuzzy inside, that you have the power to end a life at the detention of your trigger finger. You do not want your government to take this power away
from you because it will leave a void in your life. You feel so strongly about this that you are willing to see so many deaths of your citizens each
year to uphold your right to feel powerful oops i mean bear arms.

Maybe if you all started being honest about why you really don't want gun control, then us outsiders might be able to accept your reasoning.

Just a thought.

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but it is my opinion that your perception of this is completely infantile and off-base.

My first thought in response is that its not about "The Constitution Itself", its about the rights the document guarantees cannot be taken away from
us. American Citizens are supposed to be essentially considered Sovereigns, though within some reasonable rules of cooperation and not bringing harm
to others. Now, we've strayed far from that, but, we serve no king, no emperor, not even any president.

We don't want guns because of this strange fetish you're fantasizing about that we get some kind of twisted excitement from knowing we can end
others' lives just by pulling a trigger. I mean, that is the kind of thought I might expect to pop into the mind of a truly deranged individual, but
most anyone in their right mind wouldn't even consider that a person would think that way.

Is it about power? Maybe it is. The power to defend oneself, one's property, and one's family if necessary? The power to blast your way out should
another SS ever come into being and at least stand a chance? Sure. Or how about just the power to be a responsible gun owner, for huntin, target
practice, recreation, and defense in the rare event it is needed for that, because there is no power in this nation or any other who has the right to
take that from us? Citizens of the US have had guns for over 200 years now.

As far as us being willing to "see so many deaths..." so that we can "feel powerful" and fill your imagined "void" in our lives, well, that is
absolutely ridiculous. Banning guns doesn't make guns disappear, we all know that - at least, if we have a shred of common sense we do.

Your accusation that the truth is that adherents to the Constitution have some sort of Freudian void fulfilled by some twisted bloodlust is so
ridiculous, and creepy, that it makes me glad to (assume) you are not allowed to own a gun. People who think like that are the type I am hoping gun
control measures will keep guns away from (or at least make them more difficult and expensive to acquire.)

My last couple of points:

"gun control" as it is being discussed, does not mean "they're gonna take our guns away!" - juat because some fringe right-wing lunatics are
portraying it as such does not make it so. "gun control" is about putting more *controls* and regulations in place. This bothers some people - I'm
all for it.

We don't need to take guns away, but we should require those with legal guns keep them secured, so their depressed, angry-at-the-world teenagers
don't have access to them. We should not allow anyone with a mental disorder to own guns. All of these big shootings are done under the influence of
fluoride-heavy SSRI drugs - there's a pattern there. I don't want people who are depressed and taking drugs which increase suicidal and homicidal
thoughts to own guns. I don't think people on amphetamines (I.e. Adderall) should have guns either. I DO think we need much more control over guns,
but that people of sound mind should be able to own all the guns they want, as long as they keep them under lock and key when not in their immediate
posession.

Disclaimers: i'm not one of these idiots who think people outside the US should not speak their opinion - I think its great to hear and read opinions
from other cultures. That said, I do think you're reaching terribly far with the ludicrous idea presented in your post.

Lastly, I'm not a gun owner. I will be, when other higher priorities have been fulfilled. $500+ for a gun means things like car repairs, bathroom
update come first. If having a gun would fill such a great void in my life, but it comes after a new bathroom vanity and a 4wd transfer motor I've
done without for 2 yrs now, what voids are those things filling in my life? They must be even more sick than the power bloodlust of gun-ownership.
Does it mean I want to mow pedestrians down in 4WD?

My first thought in response is that its not about "The Constitution Itself", its about the rights the document guarantees cannot be taken away from
us. American Citizens are supposed to be essentially considered Sovereigns

You really have to be carefull with this though. It is entirely possible that those who seek to disarm the citizenry-- while mega arming themselves--
will try and use this as a stereotype to try and simply get their bans enacted. Many vets who served their country could be affected and disarmed as
could anyone who has ever been depressed, or said to have PTSD, autism now???. taken an SSRI, had a non violent 'drug' offense, even those who may
voice 'unpopular' opinions, a VERY slippery slope Imo. The Soviet Union had great sucess apparently with labeling many as 'mentally defective' (those
against the will of the dictatorship) and making them targets, who do we really trust to make such a distinction? I sometimes wonder if this may have
something to do with the 'sudden' jumping on by TPTB to end prohibition. Choose to partake of the latest 'legal' drug and you won't be able to own a
gun? Possible? Are *they* that devious? Hmmm...

Look - gun owners have compromised already...we've given ground even though it could probably be argued that the 2nd amendment entitles us to
more...we've been reasonable.

Where are we supposed to draw the line?
Are we supposed to keep giving ground until the 2nd amendment is a joke?

You have a problem because we don't want to get slowly boiled to death & actually stand up to draw a line?

Last time I checked it was still a respectable thing to know what you believed in & have the self fortitude to actually draw a line in the sand. I'm
not going to apologize to you for having a backbone.

You should spend your energy trying to fix one of the many other problems that kill more people in this country than gun violence.

It's not even in the top 10 reasons for death in the US.
Despite what you think, we're barely even in the top 10 per capita on gun deaths in the world (we're 9th in the world, if you care -
Source)

There are numerous things that affect many more lives than gun violence does (in 2011 only 8,583 of 12,664 murders in the US were from guns -
Source)

Pales in comparison to the 200,000 that died from medial malpractice or even the 117,000 that died from ACCIDENTS -
Source

Instead you allow yourself to be whipped into this frenzy by the media over what is statistically a non-issue in order to forward an agenda by the few
who want to see us lose the rights that our founding fathers decided were important enough to specifically spell out for us hundreds of years ago.

But for some reason you think you're on the right side of this issue...to each their own.

You can try to play mind games if you like but it's not about a power trip...

It's about a right that every human is entitled to at birth & that is the right to defend themselves from their enemies...both foreign &
domestic.

Originally posted by godofme
If the American government really wanted to "attack" its people, i'm sure your handguns and assault rifles wouldn't do much.

Are you going to shoot down fighter jets with a handgun? Didn't think so.

You probably can't even stockpile enough ammo to fight a small unit of national guard.

This law was only really relevant when guns were the end game weapon.

This is the 21st century, the time when a remote controlled drone could wipe out everyone living on your street.

Is that what your going to do next America? Stick an Anti Air gun in your back yard?

I have to laugh at this.

First off, fighter jets would do the government NO good at all against domestic resistance to tyrranical rule. They have to KNOW where their targets
are and delineate resistance from friendly (in their eyes) to be able to use them effectively...

Killing citizens willy nilly would be the surest way to end their reign.

Second, you are SERIOUSLY trying to argue that the reason we should ALLOW them to disarm us is that the arms they are trying to disarm us of AREN'T
enough to stop them from usurping authority???

You DO realize that that is an argument to DECREASE restrictions, not INCREASE them RIGHT???

Not to mention that you are WHOLLY wrong on that point. 10 million people with AR-15s, enfields and remington 700's are enough to stop almost any
musterable force on Earth. That's not even allowing for improvised explosives, rockets, mortars etc... Which are easily creatable...and impossible to
regulate..

"I find it rather humerus and odd that foreigners seem to think they have a legitimate say in another countries internal affairs that do not affect
them at all" - yeah because america hasn't been interfering with literally everything happening in the world for the past 50 years.

You didn't do anything I didn't already expect. I am not responsible for the beast that is my government. I used to be incredibly nationalistic
about my country. That has all changed. But that is for an entirely different thread...

I could care a less about gun control laws, or laws in general for Britain, or any other country for that matter. Your laws do not affect me, just
like our laws do not affect you. I just find silly that you people seem almost obsessed with US gun laws. Its as if you think your opinions are
somehow valid to the actual debate. Its silly to think that your opinions are valid ones considering you're not actually citizens of my country. I
guess I should just take it as a complement from an envious British subject?

"We have our own rich culture, and our own laws that our nation is to be governed by. It has been this way for 236 years!" - Not trying to
bash you here, but i get the suggestion your trying to say other countries don't? 236 years is nothing, England's earliest settlers were small bands
of hunters. Around 4000BC, stone cutters arrived from Europe. The Roman invaders of Britain (AD 55) gave us the first written history of the land that
came to be known as England, which they called Britannia. We win that one.

What?! Britain wasn't even a country until the tenth century. This entire argument by you has been rather bizarre. I'm not even going to bother by
further dignifying a response to the rest of this silly argument.

Maybe that's the problem? Your country is too young, the rest of the world has grown up without the need to carry guns.

Is that why your country jumped at the chance to be our little lap dogs in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is that why your country - along with all the other
countries which reside in Europe - follow my countries lead ranging all the way from economics, to politics, to foreign policy?

If the age of a country were at all relevant in determining the structure of a nations priorities, than I suppose England would not have one of the
highest crime rates of any country in the developed world (a higher crime rate than even the US). Nor does that explain why gun crime went up in the
UK by 89% from 1999-2009. I'm sorry but do you have any idea how moronic you sound right now?

I will give America credit where it is due. No country has come close to matching the achievements of America; A nation that rose to prominence so
quickly. Even your "older" nation cannot command the same accolades like putting a man on the moon, or advanced rovers on Mars. Those achievements
themselves single handidly put America in a company of its own.

Maybe that is why America has been so successful. Because we are "new age" and you are so "old age". If that is the case, then I say in with the
new, and out with the old.

You don't see us in jolly old England still carrying swords around.

I don't know what England is carrying "these days". I don't care enough about your country to have an opinion on your laws, your culture, or your
opinions.

You really have to be carefull with this though. It is entirely possible that those who seek to disarm the citizenry-- while mega arming themselves--
will try and use this as a stereotype to try and simply get their bans enacted. Many vets who served their country could be affected and disarmed as
could anyone who has ever been depressed, or said to have PTSD, autism now???. taken an SSRI, had a non violent 'drug' offense, even those who may
voice 'unpopular' opinions, a VERY slippery slope Imo. The Soviet Union had great sucess apparently with labeling many as 'mentally defective'
(those against the will of the dictatorship) and making them targets, who do we really trust to make such a distinction? I sometimes wonder if this
may have something to do with the 'sudden' jumping on by TPTB to end prohibition. Choose to partake of the latest 'legal' drug and you won't be
able to own a gun? Possible? Are *they* that devious? Hmmm...

edit on 11-1-2013 by Tecumte because: ad, qts.

Agreed - this is the tough part...there is no divine judgement board deciding what is right and wrong, and so such power could easily be abused. It's
really a catch-22. We don't want unstable people to own guns, but if we leave it to beaurocrats to. Decide who is approved or denied, they could call
anyone who is against scrapping the whole constitution "unstable.". I honestly don't know a real good solution to this problem, and doubt there
really is one

I will give America credit where it is due. No country has come close to matching the achievements of America; A nation that rose to prominence so
quickly.

Did it occur to you it might have been a result of them standing on the shoulders of giants in the nation-building game, rather than them being some
kind of governmental savants, absolutely brimming with wise ideas?

I am certainly no expert on gun laws but my understanding is that anyone who has used a gun in the commission of a violent crime already has
restrictions placed on them regarding gun ownership. I don't have a problem with that, seems reasonable to me. And again and this can't be overstated,
Chicago which is said to have tough gun laws had over 500 homocides last year, many of which were surely perfromed with guns. I think I would feel
much more UNSAFE in a city like that where I knew only the criminals and cops had guns and I had no legitimate form of self protection.

Be careful here. Your government has made provisions for just such talk. They can take your guns anyway because you don't have the right to discuss
what you just wrote up there, my friend. Here's the law.

Null and void by the constitution. The administration can can pass some law saying that every US citizen must capture and turn in one unicorn or face
a firing squad as well! I guess that gives them the right to line us all up then doesn't it?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.